Canon 70-200mm IS f/2.8 L and 1.4x TC

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Grimace, May 14, 2006.

  1. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #1
    Hey all, I always passed over this section of MR until I got my Rebel XT and some nifty lenses. It's great to go back and read the archives!

    I just ordered my first L lens and a 1.4 teleconverter to boot. (With UV filter, the total was $2000! :eek: ) Any recommendations for thing to shoot or ways to make the lens really shine? I've never dropped this much money on a lens so I REALLY don't want to be disappointed!
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #2
  3. cgratti macrumors 6502a

    cgratti

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Central Pennsylvania, USA
    #3
    Thats a great lens, excellent for sports shooting and birds!
     
  4. Grimace thread starter macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #4
    That forum sounds great -- but I didn't see many entries. Here's to hoping the camera gets here by "MacBook" Tuesday!! :p
     
  5. sjl macrumors 6502

    sjl

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #5
    So ... uh ... what was your address again? And when did you say you'd be out of the house, leaving the lens and TC behind?

    :D

    As others have said, shoot whatever takes your interest. The 70-200 is an excellent lens (I'm lusting after it myself, and will probably pick it up after I have the 100-400 in hand ... in a couple of years, most likely), and won't disappoint you. If it does disappoint, I'll give you a hundred bucks for it. :D
     
  6. Grimace thread starter macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #6
    I'm actually having second thoughts on the 1.4x teleconverter -- anyone have any strong opinions on keeping or passing on it?
     
  7. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #7
    Keep it - you may end up getting a larger prime or 100-400 later and want it.
     
  8. BakedBeans macrumors 68040

    BakedBeans

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    What's Your Favorite Posish
  9. ipacmm macrumors 65816

    ipacmm

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    #9
    I would keep it, I am about to buy that same lense so let me know what you think about it.
     
  10. Grimace thread starter macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #10
    The max zoom (200mm) only gets increased to 280mm -- given that any flaws are magnified too, I'm not sure the extra 80mm is worth it. If I had a 300mm lens, I would gain 120mm (to 420mm) -- that might be worth $280.

    I dunno, I'm just still feeling queasy about the big purchase.
     
  11. jlcharles macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wenonah, NJ
    #11
    If you didn't already get it, go get a UV filter for that bad boy. Nothing would be worse than scratching the front element. If you scratch the UV, ditch it and get a new one.

    And don't forget that you lose a half stop with the TC. It now becomes an f/4 lens with that on.
     
  12. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #12
    Go shoot some pictures with the lens and that will go away. I threw up a lot™ when I bought my 100-400, but then I took some pictures and stopped throwing up.

    :D
     
  13. idea_hamster macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #13
    First of all, congrats! Sweet set-up.

    Second, hang on to the TC. You'll find that the actual difference between 200mm and 280mm isn't that great visually, but when you move the image onto the computer, it becomes a bit more important. Zoomed all the way in, you'll be able to crop off more of the image without dropping below minimum resolution (for whatever you're doing), giving you more flexibility. And if you find that the TC never really winds up as part of your workflow, you can sell it -- it doesn't go bad like a tomato.

    Last, if you're looking for subject matter, I do have a recommendation. Try this lens out for some portrait shots. You'll find that with the lens zoomed in (maybe not all the way) and the aperature openned up, you can get a razor-thin depth of field. This will give you a nice separation of your subject (in focus) from your background (out of focus). And the bokeh (the evenly creamy quality of the out-of-focus areas) of the 70-200IS top-notch.

    Have fun -- you've earned it! :)
     
  14. Grimace thread starter macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #14
    Thanks for being so supportive -- I've found the Digital Photography thread to be the most amiable of all the MR boards.

    It was too late to cancel the 1.4x extender :rolleyes: I'll get both tomorrow, and play around with the lens for a few days. If I really want the extender after that, I'll open up the box and take the plunge. The high end stuff doesn't lose too much value anyway so if I don't use it much, I can always sell it for most of the cost.
     
  15. thebluefreak macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    #15
    Definitely an amazing lens. I've had the opportunity to do some shooting with it, and it certainly is worth the money.... for certain applications. For instance - indoor sporting events. Take that to a basketball or hockey game, or gymnastics, wrestling, etc - you'll have a distinct advantage over slower lenses (like mine). :) I don't recommend using the teleconverter for indoor sports, however, as its going to drop your lens a stop or so. Just sit as close as you possibly can. (Even professional photographers with their 300mm lenses sit courtside at basketball games.)

    However- if you want to shoot outdoor sports or wildlife- the teleconverter is probably going to come in very handy - especially if the wildlife is skittish and you can't get very close without disturbing the creature.

    I'd add that for future purchases, you might choose a certain type of photography first, and build your equipment around it. After all- you wouldn't buy a souped up desktop computer that is aimed at high-end graphics, only to find that you don't use it for gaming or video editing, and like to just use it for word processing, and that you'd like to travel with the computer. In my experience, its better to buy cheap equipment and lenses to get started, try out a few different things to see what you like to do with it, and then sell it and buy nice equipment that is designed for your purpose.

    The nice thing about your lens choice, is that there are few things you can't do with that lens.... buildings, panoramas, macro, and confined spaces come to mind. But you're all set for sports, wildlife, portrait, still-life, etc.

    One cheap, versitile canon lens that I think almost everyone should have- the 50mm f/1.8. Its only $80, and is a prime lens (no zoom), but at f/1.8- you can easily blur out your background and/or shoot in extremely low light. I've even used this lens to shoot some indoor gymnastics at close range. It takes great looking shots. Those are my 2 cents. Enjoy the lens! I'm very jealous!
     
  16. rt_brained macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    Creativille
    #16
    And shooting portraits on a non-EFS lens at close to 200mm on a Rebel XT, you'll also find yourself about 50 feet away from your subject.
     
  17. Grimace thread starter macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #17
    Where do you find this lens for $80? I'm seeing much higher prices.
     
  18. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #18
    You are prolly looking at the EF 50 1.4. The EF 50 1.8 is a lens every Canon owner shoudl have.

    Here.

    Taken with the 50 1.8 - I focused on the wrong spot, but where it is in focus, it's incredibly sharp.

    [​IMG]

    EDIT - compressed fo Web it looks like crap. Trust me, it's a good lens.
     
  19. snap58 macrumors 6502

    snap58

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Location:
    somewhere in kansas
    #19
    If you are using the Rebel, then you gain around 128 mm, since you start at 320mm, if you count the crop factor, 200 x 1.6 x 1.4=448. I think you will find it very handy, it will also work with future lens additions. If you had the 300 2.8L IS, you would have a 672 mm (crop) F4.0, and at least $2000 less in you bank account.

    Great purchase, give yourself some time to get use too it. When you first put it on you may try to use it like your other lenses, which it is not.
     
  20. Grimace thread starter macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #20
    Bingo, I was looking at the f/1.4.

    Stupid followup question -- in my case, why wouldn't I back up three steps and use my new 70-200mm over this 50mm (other than in low light)?
     
  21. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #21
    Because the 50 is a prime lense, and in most cases a prime will out-do a zoom.
     
  22. idea_hamster macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #22
    All true -- this is a basic problem for the EFS-sized sensor.

    The "ideal" (from what I've heard) focal lenght for portrait is between 75 and 90mm. To get this with the smaller digital sensor, you need a 50-ish mm lens. Problem is, the shorter the focal length, the deeper the depth of field. So with a 50mm lens, you get a good field of view, but it's difficult to really blur the background unless you have a 50/1.4 or something like that.

    Stepping back and using a longer lens fixes this. Also, it's easy to get nice candid portraits.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/idea_hamster/61071258/in/set-1348240/

    The 50/1.4 is a great lens -- especially in low light -- and is a great portrait lens if you're not worried about totally blurring the background. (E.g., this pic.) Be prepared to step back more than just a few feet to use your 70-200. But you may find it's worth it -- many pro portrait people use a longer lens because they feel it gives a flattering geometry to the nose and face.
     
  23. Grimace thread starter macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #23
    One more lens recommendation -- thanks for all your help so far!!

    Mid/Long Zoom: I upgraded my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS to a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
    Short/Mid Zoom: I have a 28-135mm f/3.5 IS lens that is my "walk around" default lens.

    My thought was to replace it with a 100mm macro lens. That would be the new "walk around" lens for quick portrait and nature shots, and then for all other outdoor stuff that I do, I could throw on the mid/long 70-200mm f/2.8L.

    Is there any reason I wouldn't want a macro to be my "leave on" lens?
     
  24. jlcharles macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wenonah, NJ
    #24
    Because that isn't always convenient. Case in point, I was shooting some hockey games, championship weekend for the local rec league. I was asked if I could do team shots of the champs. Even though it isn't something I like doing, I said yes anyway. Money is money, regardless of how I get it. Well, I only had the 70-200 that I rented with me at the rink, my 50 was in the car. Not wide enough at all. Changed to the 50, and it was still not wide enough. I had to contend with parents shooting the same shot as me. Backing up was not a great option. So when I did their tournament, I rented the 24-70.

    As for a 100mm walkaround, I don't think that's convenient at all. It becomes a 160mm with the crop factor.
     
  25. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #25
    Congrats on the purchase.

    I have the same lens, and I adore it. Prepare to be blown away by what this thing can do - IS really is a life saver is some situations.
     

Share This Page